The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Ministry of Defence employee challenging his transfer from Jaipur to Mumbai. The Division Bench held that transfer is an incident of service and courts can interfere only when a transfer order is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or issued without authority.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas in a petition filed by Chhatrapal Singh Gour, a Lower Division Clerk (Stores) working in the Canteen Stores Department (CSD).
Background of the Case
The petitioner joined the CSD in 2018 and was initially posted at Bathinda. In March 2023, he was transferred to Jaipur. In February 2025, the department issued an order transferring him to the CSD Headquarters (Secretariat Branch) in Mumbai.
He challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that the department had ignored its transfer policy, particularly the principle of transferring the “longest stayee” first. He also claimed that several employees senior to him remained at Jaipur while he was selected for transfer.
The employee further alleged that the transfer was retaliatory because he had raised issues relating to bonus payments and had sought information under the Right to Information Act.
The High Court reiterated the settled legal principle that no government employee has a vested right to remain posted at a place of choice.
The Bench observed,
“Transfer is an incident of service, meaning thereby that an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular post or at a particular station.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that he was appointed as an LDC (Stores) and therefore could only work in stores, the Court rejected the contention. It held that nothing in the appointment letter restricted the department from posting him to the Head Office or any administrative wing of the CSD.
On the transfer policy, the Bench noted that the policy itself permitted transfers on administrative grounds and that organizational requirements could override normal posting preferences. The Court emphasized that such policies are guidelines and do not create enforceable legal rights.
The judges also found no material supporting the allegation of mala fide action. They noted that three employees had been transferred under the same order and that the petitioner’s transfer was not an isolated action. The Court observed that issues raised by him regarding bonus payments and workplace concerns did not establish personal vendetta or vindictive conduct by the authorities.
Concluding that the transfer was made solely on administrative grounds and that the petitioner had failed to prove mala fide intent or violation of any statutory rule, the High Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Bench held,
“The transfer of the petitioner was undertaken only on administrative ground,” and found no reason to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Chhatrapal Singh Gour v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10104/2026
Judge: Justice Ashok Kumar Jain and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas
Decision Date: June 10, 2026
